TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Unlimited Depreciation Carry Forward</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 2 Versus British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd.</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 2 Versus British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. - [2018] 400 ITR 569 (Del) Issues involved:1. Interpretation of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the carry forward of depreciation beyond eight years.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961The main issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the carry forward of depreciation beyond the period of eight years. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed for Assessment Year 2010-11, citing that the amendment removing the cap was prospective and effective only from 01.04.2002. However, the CIT(A) reversed this decision, relying on various precedents. The ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and referred to a judgment by the Gujarat High Court which was also followed by the Delhi High Court in a previous case.The Gujarat High Court's judgment highlighted the legislative history and intent behind the amendment to Section 32(2) of the Act. The court emphasized that the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with by the amendment, allowing unlimited carry forward and set off against profits and gains of subsequent years. The court reasoned that the absence of any legislative provision restricting the benefit indicated that the provisions should be construed liberally to allow the intended advantage to the assessee.The Delhi High Court agreed with the reasoning of the Gujarat High Court, stating that if the intention of Parliament was to restrict the benefit of unlimited carry forward prospectively, it would have done so explicitly. The court concluded that the provisions should be interpreted in a manner that does not restrict the benefit intended for the assessee. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities and upholding the interpretation of Section 32(2) of the Act as allowing the carry forward of depreciation without any time limit beyond eight years.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent and the need for a liberal construction of provisions to benefit the assessee. The Court's decision aligned with previous judgments and upheld the unlimited carry forward of depreciation beyond eight years as allowed by the amended provision.
TaxTMI 